User talk:ChrisGualtieri/Archive 5

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013
posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 10:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sega Game Gear GA Review
Hello, Chris. I've managed to make some serious expansion to Sega Game Gear today. I'm not sure how much more expansion is needed to satisfy the GA criteria in your mind, but I have added coverage relevant to all four topics you mentioned in the review. I thank you for the book source, too; it's likely to be one I will use for Sega Nomad when I decide to go after that article. If you would be willing to read it again and let me know any further suggestions or areas I need to attack to get this article into full shape, let me know and I'll gladly go after it. Thanks, Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 18:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Mega CD / Sega CD
You could have engaged in the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Contention_regarding_Sega_CD and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_CD#Propose_we_rename_the_article_Mega_CD Before removing the tag. It isn't the sources alone but the writing style and content of the article that has a strong North American point of view which you would have seen if you had viewed and engaged in the discussion.94.172.126.154 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I already did and you are using that template incorrectly and BRD says you do not re-add it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

BRD says if Your edit gets reverted discuss on the talk page or create a new discussion and your edit did get reverted and you should have joined the discussion to begin with in the quest for consensus when something is clearly in dispute94.172.126.154 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit was reverted. You bring it talk page. I already dealt with it. Do not waste my time. I am in no mood to be harassed when my answer is already present for you to read. Answer it and stop ignoring me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see your post under the GA Nomination discussion. I was focused on the name change discussion, my bad.94.172.126.154 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you using multiple IPs or something? I rather not file SPI, but it looks like you are experienced and your IP address bounces. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No i'm not but thanks for assuming good faith94.172.126.154 (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lying is wrong. Don't forget it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

-i gave you a warning last time, so you know why this has been brought up.Lucia Black (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 et al
Hi Chris, I'm sorry if it may have seemed that I was not participating in the discussion on this subject, but I have been away on holiday without internet access and I don't publicise such arrangements for obvious reasons. It is probably just as well, because any discussion with certain other contributors who pile in whenever this subject is discussed tends to end up as a slanging match. I don't intend to alter my conduct unless the guidelines change. If they do change, I will abide by them, as I have done since date-linking in biographical articles was outlawed. I hope that we can agree to disagree in a civil manner. Deb (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, it ain't such a big deal. I may not agree, but I don't intend to carry on someone's issue from long ago. The holiday was fine, I went on one myself and got some good research material which I will be adding later to Wikipedia. I rather not risk driving you away by forcing changes to stylistic matters or causing a big problem. I believe I made a comment about the decision to continue at DRN, and given the derailment to past action and behavior I see no reason that it should carry on. The problem I am currently dealing with is likely how you felt about my action, but in this case I owe much of my interest and joy in my research and recreational life because of Toren Smith. Wikipedia is not some battleground to play war on, there is no need to push for a unified style before it naturally evolves... editor retention is poor, content additions are poor, conflicts are off the chart and we lose admins by the week.
 * In short, I apologize if I caused you some stress over the matter. My ideals must be better separated from the reality of the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, it shouldn't be a big deal and I look forward to working with you on future articles. Deb (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

class=GA
When you promote a WP:GA you should change the talk page parameters to say class=GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi ChrisG. I wasn't sure whether you'd still be watching the relevant talk page, so thought I'd leave a message for you here also. Thanks so much for the pass on "You" – the comments in your review really got me to focus not only on the prose, but on the whole purpose of the song article. Big thanks for that. In my experience, this was a case of the reviewer making a huge contribution to the article. Best, JG66 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you! Glad you got it to GA status, you worked hard on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 1995 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Golden Boy and Silent Service


 * 1996 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to You're Under Arrest!


 * 1999 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Soul Hunter


 * 2001 in anime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Saiyuki

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black
Just a heads up that, as a result of this discussion at ANI, User:Lucia Black has had an interaction ban imposed on them on interactions with you for a period of three months. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a somber moment for me. I acknowledge that I was unable to reconcile our differences and hope that after several months we may be able to work constructively in this area. I will however try to sanitize and keep all future interactions as civil and professional, to minimize conflict. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good response, and I was pleased that you didn't rejoin the debate when it flared up again. You should have some peace and quiet for 3 months now, and who knows, maybe after that time Lucia will have calmed down, got herself together, and you'll be able to work with each other. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope so. I can go back to to focusing on the content improvements for the time being, this whole matter really was soul-sucking. I didn't want to poke the matter or make it worse; if I can't fix it myself, I have really no right to advocate a solution. If things do not change in 3 months, I will not get bogged down in another dispute and promptly go to DRN or Mediation or another proper venue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

An article you voted for deletion was recreated and recently it has been nominated for deletion again
Check: Articles_for_deletion/Asturix_(2nd_nomination) OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Nihongo and related
When you built up the title section of Ghost in the Shell, you made a couple mistakes. The first field is always the English or the phrase you don't want italicized. The second field is always the Japanese text. The third field is always the romanization. In one case you put "Japanese", "Romanization", "English", which screwed up the display and in one instance you wrapped only one latin phrase in nihongo.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 18:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Also, the source was the book not the DVD. Could I ask your thoughts about the future of these articles. I've been working on a sandbox of the just the manga. Would you be willing to take a quick view of that? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I made it very clear to you that "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" is not going to exist again.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 08:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It will be handled at DRN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And now that there's one less dissenting voice you feel you will get your way? I've also toned down your additions to the article, as it is way too much detail and way too much redundant information. The casting details are not necessary. You can easily say both films are directed by Oshii rather than saying it twice. And we already know Shirow wrote the manga.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 11:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Stay off my page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=566912181 your edit] to Lucky Star (anime) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * |らき☆すた|Raki☆Suta}} anime is an adaptation of the Lucky star [manga] by Kagami Yoshimizu. The 24-episode anime was produced by Kyoto Animation aired between

Your GA nomination of FLCL
The article FLCL you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:FLCL for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of SL93 -- 02:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Lucky Star (anime)
Regarding this, first I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you'll be able to build up the article into something worthwhile, which is why I did a bit of copyediting on it. However, I would like you to clarify where you plan on taking the article. Are you trying to do something like at Dragon Ball Z? Or Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex? I merely do not want an incomplete article, or an article that has little to no chance of improving beyond Start or C class. WP:AVOIDSPLIT is generally my philosophy about splitting articles, as you may already be aware per our previous exchanges. I am not always against a split, but I generally need to be shown some evidence that a split was warranted. Also, what is your view on List of Lucky Star episodes? If there is going to be a Lucky Star (anime) article, should the episode list eventually be merged into that article so all the anime info is in one place? If most of the anime's info will go onto Lucky Star (anime) anyway, I doubt the episode list could be expanded any further without merely being a content fork of that article.--  十  八  05:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Was hoping to use a collapsed list for the episodes if it was really bad. Not sure why the Spin-off is listed there currently. But yes, I want to fill out the content with proper production, release and analysis and such. I think it would be appropriate to have a small character list included with the cast for Japanese/English VAs included. I'm don't want to leave it as a mere split, I intend to expand it considerably. Just have been very busy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That was another concern of mine; you are always very busy and I feel you are wearing yourself too thin by trying to work on so many projects at the same time, while simultaneously dealing with all the controversy you tend to spur up. I've noticed that you tend to move from project to project, doing some work, but then moving on to something else before long, never really completing anything in the process, and leaving things half-finished, such as what you said of Dragon Ball Z here. I just don't want to look back 5 years down the road and see a large amount of stagnant articles that were never improved beyond start class.--  十  八  06:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is particularly difficult given the atmosphere surrounding the project, I can't simply work and get things done on the time table I want. It is drama if anything. It drives off the editors and vast amounts of content are being lost. This project is self-destructive, and no one seems to realize what is being done - much less take stock in their actions. If DBZ languishes from my ideal, so be it, the article is useful. The "controversy" you say I stir up is bucking against the deep rooted problems of this project. Such problems existed for years and A&M has a demonstrated history of crumbling coverage and articles. Instead of caretakers, a sizable group of the active editors continue to delete and destroy pages while lamenting the lack of interest in the project. Never is the concern of the readers put forth; only this streamlined ideal - you can see the illogic of those propositions. Can't you? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if such content can be proven to exist should an article be created. I was thinking about it, and the main reason why the project turned out this way had to do with there being stub articles created for branch media which did not contain anything substantial and/or did not satisfy WP:GNG, so the vast majority of such articles were merged, because there was no production, analysis, or reception. Most of the time, most such branch articles would be discouraged unless they can stand on their own. The fact of the matter is, 99% of IPs don't have access to such content, and most registered users don't either, so articles up until now have generally been written with the content that's available. So I don't think it had to do with deletionism or exclusionism; the content (production, analysis, reception, etc.) was simply not there. If you can show that Lucky Star (anime) has such content, then more power to you, but I doubt the rest of Lucky Stars media would have such content available, especially the manga and video games, so I don't see those being expanded very much aside from say a list of chapters for the manga.--  十  八 ' 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Air conditioner inverter
An article that you have been involved in editing, Air conditioner inverter, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. N2e (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I just proposed merging two articles on the same topic:  Air conditioner inverter and another entitled Inverter compressor.

SAC
There is no need to have a list of characters on the article when a separate standalone list of characters exists.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 06:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discuss on the talk page, not here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should I do that when you're the only one in opposition? And why did you revert all of my edits entirely when I made a very explicit edit where I got rid of the character list?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 13:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Stay off my page. Do not ever post here again. This is your final warning about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, that's harsh... sorry. Let's limit the back and forth and continue discussing on the talk pages and such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN:
Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Evangelion
Hello. I write to you following your most recent contributions to the "Evangelion" debate over at WT:ANIME.

I have to say I have not seen any of the "immature personal attacks" that you attribute to Ryulong, nor do I agree that (s)he would be "incapable of engaging in the consensus". As such, I have to tell you that you do not come off as particularly civil when you reduce Ryulong's arguments to nothing more than "immature personal attacks", and you don't seem open to compromise when you say that "such merges are unquestionably detrimental", or that "view arguments are invalid" without trying to understand them.

That was not the first time in this debate that you've misinterpreted opposite arguments and any proposition of change as "attacks" directed at you personally or at the subject itself, and you have to understand this isn't the right way to debate. You seem to be too much personally/emotionally involved, and that led you to misinterpret the debate as an attempt to delete Evangelion from Wikipedia.

I understand that things can get complicated when dealing with pop culture subjects with higher than usual personal involvment from editors (since these subjects often hold a special place in the editors' life), however my view is that you have brought needless drama to the issue, which could have been resolved much earlier without all the fuss.

I see you've been involved very recently in a serious conflict with Lucia Black (I don't know anything of the case besides what can be read now at WT:ANIME), and I think that you may not currently be in the right mindset to have a peaceful and civil debate. Given that I find it quite difficult to have a constructive interaction with you, maybe you could take a step back in order for you to feel less involved, and to put the conflict with Lucia Black behind you.

But I have nothing personal against you, and I'd be happy to continue debating with you if you could just keep a civil tone and avoid accusing others of personal attacks when there are none.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll keep my reply short, but I did mull it over for a while. Let's avoid the personal attack sections, I wasn't singling Ryulong out either but throughout the 7 month conflict plenty of instances exist outside this immediate discussion. Let's not discuss Lucia Black either. The conflict began at Ghost in the Shell and migrates every time I open a DRN into the original problem - NGE is just the extension and thus proxy of the original problem. Sticking to the NGE matter, I try to be civil, I really do. I am not a mere consumer of content, I research anime and manga - naturally my views are different then the casual viewer. This combined with the policies of Wikipedia allow for articles on different media provided N and GNG is met, but I have higher than bare minimum standards and that is best summarized by my recreation of Dragon Ball Z. I work in A&M to address reader complaints, the problems with our structure is a major one and the marginalization of content is its manifestation. If you have any questions for me and want a side-discussion between us on my views - where I can best express them more rationally and coherently - please do so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You've indulged in personal attacks earlier in the discussion, so you're not in a position to play it like a rigorist. Clearly your tone and approach are not suited to the kind of debate that is expected on Wikipedia, if you manage to antagonize even with newcomers having nothing to do with your personal dispute. I tried to explain this to you earlier. As long as you allow yourself to comment on contributors, I stand by my comment and forbid you to remove it. You can deal with any problem at WP:ANI.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What PA? You just made them twice on me! How is this someone being civil, you will not discuss the actual topic, instead resorting to personal attacks. You even took my words out of context and I explained that was not what I meant, so you made a PA in response. I didn't even say you were twisting or refactoring them - I assumed I wasn't clear enough. That PA and response is hostile. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Themes of Neon Genesis Evangelion
Hey, um, how come you don't categorize pages when you first make them?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 21:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't done it yet, is all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO, it should really be done in the first edit.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 21:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted, but I am bad at finding and using categories properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fansub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madhouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Otaku
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Otaku you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Piotrus -- 11:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

GitS DRN
Hi. In the on-going GitS dispute resolution noticeboard, you recently wrote "with Folken going so far as to misrepresent the sides and use my desire for high quality articles as a reason why my views should be discounted"

1)I haven't misrepresented anything. I have merely counted who agreed and who disagreed, as far as I know that count was accurate (with the exception of one ambiguous statement of yours that I have misread in good faith). "Misrepresenting the sides" is a serious accusation that cannot be casually thrown around. It requires solid evidence, which you do not have.

2) I have never said your views should be "discounted", nor have I used your "desire for high quality articles" to argue so.

Please understand that Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and you've nearly crossed the line there. Let me be clear that this dispute resolution is yours (and Ryulong's and Lucia Black's) but not mine, and I absolutely do not wish to be associated to it in any way, especially not through these groundless accusations of yours.

I thus ask you to remove from your comment in the DRN the sentence that I quoted above. I also do not want you to mention me in any way during this dispute resolution process, unless if you have to list usernames according to opinions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the context wasn't clear. So I removed your aspect from it, but you did continue to misrepresent the situation in numerous posts. For instance, about the number of people and their sides, and you act like I am alone in the dispute. More than once you refer to me preventing this, but forget that 3 others have expressed the same sentiment. Though your last post before I mentioned it at DRN you misrepresent the sides at its most basic level by stating, " Objectively, there are more people in favor of TV anime as main. You fail to formulate any coherent argument against that, and you fail to formulate any compromise." There are many things wrong with that, considering it is a 4-4 split before the arguments and you say there is no coherent argument when one has been presented multiple times and by all those opposed to the move. I removed the section you were concerned with, but you should understand how your comments are misleading at first reading because the number of people involves and sides are under-represented. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You were the most active opponent to Ryulong's proposition, and as such, if you had changed your mind or agreed to a compromise, it would have significantly impacted the consensus. It was only logical that I adressed you the most, and I often used "you" as a way to designate the whole opposition, but it didn't mean you were the only user in disagreement.
 * However, you have probably skipped a few users in your count, and ACWC should be counted as neutral and not in one side or the other. I thus stand by what I said, a majority of users (albeit not by much) supported TV anime as main, that is fact. If you want to accuse me of lying, without serious evidence, I'll have to consider that as a personal attack and we'll have to settle it at WP:ANI. Otherwise I repeat that I don't wish to be associated with your dispute resolution with Ryulong and Lucia Black.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Calm down, I did not say you were lying and I did not skip a few users in my count and someone opposed to the move is still opposed, postulating a compromise or alternate solution is not a "neutral" stance. Your issue has been resolved, or so I believe. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

GA nominations ?
Hi again. Don't take this the wrong way (nothing personal after my previous message here), but since I am interested in Evangelion-related stuff on Wikipedia, I looked a bit at what was currently happening on these articles, and noticed that you have nominated Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) for GA review.

...don't you think this is way too soon ? I can still see a lot of problems in the article, and I can tell you for sure it will not pass, at least on two obvious criteria:
 * "Verifiable with no original research": a lot of sources still directly reference fansites (ie unreliable) whether works are hosted there, or just translated. A thorough job of source verification and formatting (so as to reference the original works and not their fan-translations of fan-hosting) is required. Besides that, a lot of comments are still unreferenced and some serious OR still dwells there.
 * "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." Obviously several content disputes are going on, such as whether films should be mentioned in the article, and whether the "Themes" section should be split. Article not stable at all.

Based on that quick assessment, any GA nomination is still premature and I strongly suggest that you remove it until serious work has been done, and that we reach a stable enough version of the article. I think making this GA-worthy is still a matter of weeks or even months. Besides, you have started editing the article only a few days ago, for minor clean up work, and you have not even waited for input/help from major contributors on how to reach GA, which could be a great benefit to your nomination.

While anyone can nominate an article for GA, Good article nominations/Instructions states that "nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."

I've taken a look at the other articles you've nominated for GA, and noticed a few things. It's the very same problem with Otaku: too soon, and predictably, the review failed. You also nominated the article for review after having edited it only 6 times, and you didn't notify the major contributors of your GAN. Your GAN for FLCL succeeded, but I see you've done only 30 edits of clean up work, right before nominating the article. You did credit yourself for the GA status on your userpage, but apparently forgot to notify major contributors about it...(I don't know if there is a user talkpage template for this, though).

In light of all this, I think you should reconsider the way you nominate articles for GA, and maybe think it a bit through before requesting a review...Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Otaku page did not fail, and I do not like your insinuations. NGE is stable and if you check the criteria, it is stable. This has been covered previously in other discussions. I will deal with the Themes page as I will, but you could do your part by pointing out the OR at NGE. You seem to confuse the Themes split with NGE - and I do not feel that giving a blow by blow will help you much in fixing it. If you wish - find your own materials, things like the NGE Proposal are fairly widespread for primary documents and many secondary citations come from RSes - blogs or otherwise - they count for their statements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Otaku did not pass, obviously you misjudged whether the article was really ready for a review. And in my opinion, so did you for NGE. It is not stable, there has recently been edit conflict regarding whether the films should be mentioned, and whether the Themes section should be split. There are a lot of OR and insufficient sources. As for me, I'm busy working on other articles and considering the amount of work required I have no intention of significantly involving myself with the article right now. Since you nominated NGE for review, obviously you considered it was ready and now it's your responsibility. But again I advise you to postpone the nomination until the article is in a better state, obviously you have misjudged several issues.
 * You may not like my "insinuations", whatever you think they may be, but the fact remains that you failed to follow proper procedure when nominating articles for GA review when you were not a major contributor, and I urge you to correct these mistakes, merely out of courtesy toward those who created this Good content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the difference between fail and hold or the definition of stable, you also do not understand that anyone can nominate. Given the situation at Panzer Dragoon which is also on hold, I find your issue of "fail" to be rude. Please do not post here again, I have no desire to involve myself with you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the difference between fail and hold. I only tried to help you understand that when you first nominated Otaku it was just not ready, and there is no assurance it will pass. There is, however, assurance that NGE will fail. The definition of "stable" as stated by WP:GACR is "does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", and there are on going content disputes in NGE about films and Themes split. Once again, that is far from being the only issue there. The situation at Panzer Dragoon has nothing in common since it required only a few touch-ups and was assured to pass. You might not like what I have to say, but the issues are serious, and if you're not willing to solve them or even to discuss them, at one point I will have to report your behavior. You must understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative space, it is very likely you will be told things you don't like when editing Wikipedia, but running away from that is no solution.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked you stay to off my page. Now please stop threatening me and stop making drama. I collaborate and work with others like Prabash on GAs and am dealing with Piotrus's concerns for the GA. If you note, the difference in page numbers to pass for GA led to a brief citation discussion which is civil and proper. The ideas of a peer have helped me expand and make the article better, I'm not rejecting them or refusing to collaborate at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring
Rather than just slapping a warning on my talkpage lets discuss this here or on the article's talkpage, I simply put that what you placed in the lead did not follow what was in the article neither are sourced in fact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't you read the source? Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World? Do I need more exacting ones, and removing something which is sourced to the material is not proper. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then the article is saying conflicting things in places and I was wrong in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I suppose I could throw a Danny Choo comment in as well for the video game aspect as covered in Otacool. But that book leaves me feeling off because its self-identified Otaku, but I shouldn't be too picky that they won't meet the psychological profile of NRI... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell ya what, since it is covered in the article, I won't reiterate the English part unless the reviewer has an issue with it. I already cited the group pretty well, English publications, at least academically are represented by a lot of one-off research groups where as Japan has them more sporadically, but of more detail. I cited Otaku USA and also kept the book citation close, while I don't like the evolution of the term expanding with each chapter... it is the intention of the authors and even in reviews and interviews, this broad usage is referred, but not explicit. Kinda lame, but it is what is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

About the NGE dispute
Please don't take it the wrong way, this is not intended as a snide remark or anything. Are you an en-N user ? I don't mean it in a derogatory way as I'm myself not an en-N User, but if you aren't, it would explain a few things about our dispute. Sometimes you use an awkward grammar and you don't seem to read my comments correctly. The source of the problem seems to be that you have misunderstood the English in the documents you're dealing with. You have misread the Tsurumaki quote, and you seem to have difficulty to grasp the concepts developed in Broderick, ie you reduce everything he says to a simplistic "there is a religious meaning", but once you read Broderick that is just not what he says. If you are a native English user, then please accept my apologies, but the problem remains that you just don't understand the material you're dealing with.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have interpretation and context issues to deal with in my post on the talk page. You seem to have issues with the "religious meaning" and the actual text of the original NGE statement as it is meaningless, which is suspect here, and probably a bad paraphrasing at minimum. Though other sources disagree with the creators... and you seem to be hostile in those intepretations. We are not talking about the same thing - you don't understand it, and I can't define it for you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we've now cleared the misunderstanding, maybe you could close the thread at WP:NORN and hide/collapse the comments ? It's taking up a lot of space for nothing, now...Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You may do so. I've been reading more on the religious interpretations from Mach. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. Good luck for your work, I know it is a daunting task to make something out of that topic !Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The hard part is making something accurate without making the notes so ridiculous that it fails explanation... something which I already have issues with. " As far as Christian sources are concerned, a substantial part of

Evangelion’s narrative is derived from the so-called Gnostic Gospels, though it also deals with a variety of notions related to orthodox Christian narratives like the book of Revelation and the New Testament’s Gospels. In fact, depending on what Evangelion source we pick, Kaoru, Rei, Shinji, and Gendō can all be seen, at different points of the narrative and under different guises, as valid Christ figures or analogues." Comes from My father, my mother. But is a good overview I want to deal with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell (manga)
I thought I made it clear that I will not agree to the creation of this page. I have restored the redirect and more clearly raised my complaints at the dispute resolution page. I would appreciate if you made your intentions clearer in the future, as my attention in the past 24 hours has been diverted to another discussion.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You agreed to the changes of the post, and it was a dedicated manga page. You broke that agreement with your reversion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I most certainly did not agree to any such item.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Ranma ½ locations
I have reverted your edit as I do not see any notability here, Im a fan of Ranma here but the locations are pretty much all WP:PLOT info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Using that wrong, but whatever. I was planning to integrate the content better with the production, sapping away the singular content. I can't make it work right now, so its fine. Just undo the template while you are at it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not use the sandbox or userspace? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cause I am constantly stuck cleaning up messes that I forget to occasionally clean up after my own half-finished work! Haha. Yeah... rather lame, I know. Oh! I responded to your comment about Animecons as an RS, Animecons was correct by the way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies
In advance for any fallout I may have caused. Have been in Western Ireland (Belmullet, population 53, all related) with no internet for quite a time. Could barely get on occasionally to check emails. I am wrestling with the infoboxes at the moment. Going to try and make consistent across all the GITS articles in style/format. The animanga one seems the most efficient in terms of covering all the bases. But I suspect I may miss some some info. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have provoked the hornets nest it seems, but your stance is correct and this is disturbing as it was the core argument and DBZ was the proxy. With that being said, A&M has begun to move in a better direction. I'm online for awhile, if you want to discuss this more quickly. Glad to see you are back from vacation, I got like 7 GA's in the queue now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well its 4:23 am here, I didnt expect to stay up half the night arguing about it. I am going to try and finish aligning the infoboxes before I hit the sofa. The film one is particularly ugly. Grats on the GA's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankfully info box appearances aren't GA criteria, but I'll see what I can do. It'll probably be tomorrow or the next day before I get to some heavy work. I got a bunch more books on inter-library loan and I've been plodding along with Satoshi Kon's stuff. Miyazaki is another focus as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha well there is that. Dont spread yourself too thin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did that because I couldn't work in my first areas and I need more experience in preparing GA and FA to ultimately get these up to spec for the anniversary. I want it at FA, ideally main page, for the 1st anniversary of Toren's passing. Even if I have to do all three books on one page, I want it professional quality. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is complete and utter BS. So a new editor comes along and suddenly he completely throws everything out of wack and supports your version despite the articles still being under discussion? That is not fair. There is no compromise. This argument of "independent notability" is ridiculous. The franchise is not independently notable of anything and I will not stand for this. Also, Lucia Black should probably be blocked for violating her topic ban.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 02:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Touhou figurines.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Touhou figurines.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Satoshi Kon speaking in Washington DC in 2007.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Satoshi Kon speaking in Washington DC in 2007.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Otaku
The article Otaku you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Otaku for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Piotrus -- 02:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

List of longest novels
Hello, regarding this edit, please note that the references added to the article are taken from the references about Proust's magnum opus. That is clearly not proper. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see one of them was, so I removed it. The Thai Wikipedia has a featured article (admittedly below our GA criteria) on the work itself. I'm fixing the mess now. Translating is a pain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gundam War: Mobile Suit Gundam the Card Game
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Gundam War: Mobile Suit Gundam the Card Game, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.openhappy.com/hobby/gundam_card_game.php.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the bot works. I split the content off the franchise, its correct name moved over, but the original page was Gundam War Collectible Card Game. It existed long before that website did. Anyways... fixing redirect issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Timelines of Gundam for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timelines of Gundam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Timelines of Gundam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Mobile FIghter G Gundam
Yes, I'm preparing it for GA, though I'm still waiting on a few resources to arrive before I do so (print references, permission to use a photograph, etc.). I would be happy to help with the other articles relating to the franchise, though I'm ignorant on most of them; I'm most familiar with G Gundam and Gundam Wing. The flagship article deserves the most attention for sure, and I will do what I can, when I can. In the mean time, feel free to make any pertinent changes or copyedits to G Gundam as needed. Thanks. ~ Hibana (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good, I've been involved in a bit of wikidrama with A&M because of viewpoint disagreements. I'm trying to combine some pages, expand others and get the franchise page to GA level - and in order do it justice I need a view additional eyes. I don't want to get into over-detailed territory, as timelines and such are more indepth, but I also need some sources to arrive. I can't get some simply because they are non-English and Japan only, but by any chance, can you read Japanese? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Cultural impact of Gundam
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cultural impact of Gundam, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Castle of Cagliostro
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Castle of Cagliostro you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- 23:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Castle of Cagliostro
The article The Castle of Cagliostro you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Castle of Cagliostro for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- 23:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yuri
Please read Yuri (genre).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is backwards as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh really? So pretty much every page on the internet, which talks about this, as well as pretty much all manga nerd (including academics) are wrong about this subject then?
 * What is said in Yuri (genre) is verified by reliable sources. What you claim is not. In fact, pretty much everything concerning yuri and/or yaoi, in hentai, is completely unverified. What matters on wikipedia isn't what individual editors feel is true, but rather what can actually be verified as true. So... where are your sources?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about you check the sources on Yuri before you continue to be uncivil. Yuricon pushes an agenda and a very strong stance. From the discussion with Friedman, "As with so many things, pornographers adopted the term yuri to anything with lesbian content, so lesbians in Japan don't use "yuri" to define themselves. And "yuri" in anime and manga remained a term for lesbian porn for a long time. ... . I chose to use "yuri" for several reasons. One, it was originally used for lesbians, and I wanted to reclaim, if you will, the lesbian identity in yuri. Secondly, lily symbolism was well known and very common in anime and manga. It lent itself to a ready symbol for our genre. And it was a pretty word - after all, girls like flowers. (laughs) So, I began to spread the word, yuri as representative of the genre. Over here in the west, that's what it is now called. In Japan, while fans and artists sometimes use yuri, publishers use "Girls' Love" in English, and lesbians still tend to avoid calling their work yuri although they are aware of the symbolism." You have an influential person on a crusade to change and take back the meaning, but that presents a pretty big NPOV statement as well. Yuri is not just "girl's love" in Japan, its commonly and majorly explicit lesbian relationships. The Yuricon definition as advanced by the publisher is at odds with the Japanese usage. Clearly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, I wish I could fix the yaoi/yuri mess, but the etymology and origin of the words alone make for their own articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything in Wikipedia must be verified. That is one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Where are your sources?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ...also Yuricon/Friedman is hardly the only source used there.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are your sources stating that Friedman is incorrect? If there is a problem - YOU fix it. Friedman's work with Yuricon is the best source for yuri-related commentary in the West. Strictly academically, there is a major gap in research here so you are challenging Friedman, then be prepared to prove it. Yuri is internationally different than yuri in Japan which is primarily doujin works under the GL genre. That's not debatable is it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you do consider Friedman to be an accurate source? I thought you were rejecting her words. Well I have no source that states that Friedman is incorrect. Your interpretation of what Friedman says, however, is incorrect.
 * The quote you cite, was about how publishers in Japan, avoid the term Yuri, where the term is mostly used for pornographic works. This does not say anything about how people in general or manga fans, use the term. Also there are such publications as Yuri Shimai, Comic Yuri Hime and Comic Yuri Hime S. The publishers refer to those publications as Girls Love magazines, rather than Yuri magazines, but they have no trouble using the term in their titles. Also there are manga titles such as YuruYuri, the massive use of Yuri symbolism in Maria-sama ga Miteru and the frequent use of the word Yuri, to refer to suspected lesbianism or lesbian acts, by characters in several manga.
 * I.e. publishers refer to lesbian works as being of the genre GL, rather than referring to the genre as Yuri ...but the word Yuri is still used, both by publishers and (more-so) by readers.
 * Furthermore, Friedman confirms that Yuri was regarded as exclusively pornographic, in her statements that Yuricon is responsible (taking a bit much, and far to exclusive, credit for it) for changing the western perception of the term, from exclusively pornographic, towards the more general meaning. Naturally, the changing of the meaning of terms is gradual, so there are still a lot of people who use the exclusive meaning.
 * "Here in the west, as anime and manga fandom grew quickly in the 1990s, the term Yuri was often, but not exclusively, used to represent explicit stories with sexual relations between women. (note: this began with "in the west". so the "exclusively explicit" bit is about western perceptions) In short, it was considered “porn for guys.” The term shoujoai (Girls’ Love) was created by an American fan as an analog for shounenai, which was being incorrectly used by American fans as a term for Boys’ Love manga. Shoujoai wasn’t ever really used in Japan – although they understood what was meant if western fans used it. If they did use the word, they meant it in the sense of adults who had a fetish for young girls. Shoujoai was originally used by American fans to refer to stories that contained romantic love between girls. The emphasis was originally on the romantic over the sexual, but this age and content distinction was convention that was made up by Americans and had no meaning at all in Japan.
 * What *is* sometimes used in Japan – especially by publishers – is GL, short for Girl’s Love (in English.) This was created as an analog to the preferred genre term for Yaoi which is Boy’s Love, i.e. BL. For the same reason American fans like Japanese words, Japanese fans think English sounds exotic and cool. Creators of f/f stories in Japan – especially within the lesbian community – avoided using “Yuri” for a long while because of the porn connotation, preferring Onna no ko x Onna no ko (女の子 x 女の子) or Onna-doushi (女同士). These are slowly falling out of favor in Japan as the word Yuri takes their place as an indicator of “lesbian-themed animation or comics.”" - Yuricon
 * The above quote, also states that the avoidance, in Japan, of Yuri, due to pornographic connotations, was in the past. Thus in the periods before and after, the term was used by them ...and just because the term was avoided by published stories, that doesn't mean that the term wasn't used for non-pornographic lesbian works, among readers.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You discount 40 years of history simply because Friedman's campaign in the West? Considering there is no academic study and analysis of yuri, this is the line that I've been forced to draw because of that missing information. The word publishers means not doujinshi, but major usage and connotation rides on the doujin works. We can't use primary sources here and we lack secondary sources for it. Let's put it this way, when you pick up a work labeled "yuri" in Japan, it is likely doujinshi and if its "Girl's love" it is a publication. The article has its flaws, but I'd be happy if you could address the Research Circle's (defunct, I fear) missing data then I could finally get those terms to GA or FA level. What we have is not correct, but even shotacon is a mess.
 * Let's not quibble over our perceived differences... the Anime and Manga wikiproject has much bigger issues that I've been trying to work out. Ask if you really want to know, its an existential threat of sorts. Perhaps we should try and resolve the issue by asking Friedman about solving this issue, as I really can't think of a better person to ask such questions. If you haven't noticed, I got otaku to GA level. If you got a minute, mind doing a quick check to make sure I got the broad usage down pat, I'm preparing it for FA. I hope to get the other major nav box terms to GA and maybe FA in a few months. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be super clear, I rewrote the section and took out a bit of my own editorializing which I carelessly slipped in. Here's the simple and easier relationship between the two that I now present at hentai... without getting into the worldwide variances. I think I might tweak the wording about the fanfiction aspect on yaoi, as fanfiction is not floating the usage.
 * "While yaoi and yuri are not always explicit, the pornographic history and association remains.[39] Yaoi's pornographic usage has remained strong in textual form through fanfiction.[40] The definition of yuri has begun to be replaced by the broader definitions of 'lesbian-themed animation or comics'.[41]"
 * Do you have an issue with that section or no? I don't want to be PAed by someone saying I am "writing a thesis" on it, but as we both seem to know, the definition's history is very complicated and not enough suitable secondary sources exist for Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You make a lot of claims.

What sources do you have, to back them up? As I said, the section in the Yuri article is verified. Your claims aren't. If you want the statements on wikipedia to reflect your opinion: Verify them!

If you can't, I'll have to ask you to accept the fact that you cannot make those statements on wikipedia. It doesn't matter how true you may consider them to be. It doesn't even matter how true they actually are. If you can't verify it, it has no place on wikipedia!

Also, you state that lesbians don't use the term Yuri, but doujinshi does... Why would doujinshi be shameful to be associated with? Doujinshi is not just another word for porn, you know. There is plenty of very "pure" doujinshi works. Plenty of which are Yuri ...many of which are clearly labelled as "Yuri", rather than (or possibly in addition to) using a different term. Also, most Yuri is made by (and for) women, anyway, so...

As to the claim that publishers don't use the term Yuri... Again, I point you to Yuri Shimai, Comic Yuri Hime (both of which are officially, commercially, published by publishers ...with a female demographic), YuruYuri (officially/commercially published Yuri manga, with a somewhat unclear demographic, having started out in a magazine for men, but then moving to one for women) and Maria-sama ga Miteru (officially/commercially published Yuri books/manga/anime, with a female demographic), with it's yamayurikai amongst it's many other references to the term Yuri.

...oh, and BTW: What you have done on other parts of wikipedia, is utterly irrelevant. You got otaku to GA level? So what? You might as well be saying that you ate a strawberry ice cream, last Thursday, for all that has to do with this conversation. In fact, even edits on Yuri or Hentai, that are not strictly related to this specific topic, are just as irrelevant.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me, each part of the text is cited and yuri is not the main topic of hentai so it should not be a focal point. Secondly, I was just wondering if you review it since you were active, I need more eyes to find out weaknesses before I put it up for FA, that's all. I got help from Mark Arsten who was kind enough to copy edit it; I'm here for content not wikidrama - so please relax. Let's try to remain on topic though, do you have a problem with the revision or no? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Timelines of Gundam
Hi again. I see you have split Timelines of Gundam from Gundam, and I'm here to tell you that this is problematic. Timelines about fictional universes are unanimously frowned upon on WP, because these are usually highly plot-centric topics that either don't meet our inclusion criteria (in that it is unlikely they have been sufficiently covered in reliable third-party, independent secondary sources, and thus aren't notable and don't deserve a stand-alone article), or just don't have enough coverage to go beyond overly detailed plot summaries, which violates our WP:NOTPLOT policy.

Please take a look at a few examples of "fictional timeline" articles (including some Gundam ones) nominated and deleted at AfD : AfD/History of the BattleTech universe, AfD/Cosmic Era, AfD/Dragonlance timeline (2nd nomination), AfD/Hellboy fictional timeline, AfD/Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline (2nd nomination), AfD/Post–One Year War, AfD/The Sopranos timeline, AfD/Chronology of Star Wars (3rd nomination), AfD/Chronology of the Harry Potter series (5th nomination).

Looking at Timelines of Gundam, it is no different than all the other deleted articles, with a massive plot dump and no independent or reliable source whatsoever (and I think it's unlikely you'll ever find adequate coverage to pass WP:N). Remember that per WP:AVOIDSPLIT "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic [...] If a concept can be cleanly trimmed, removed, or merged elsewhere on Wikipedia, these steps should be undertaken first before some new article is created" (and this very good piece of advice is not restricted to the chronological aspects of Gundam, as I see you have split other topics).

As such, I'll re-merge the article back into Gundam right away. You're of course free to develop the subtopic and look for sources (or to reduce it as you like) but without solid evidence that this article would pass WP:GNG, it would be unproductive to try to split it again (if it takes too much space, I'm sure most of the fancruft that can easily be cut down). Of course, this is not binding and you may disagree, however note that any attempt to restore the split will result in an AfD, and you can be sure it will close on "delete"/"merge".Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Gundam
This shouldn't have been split either. The article is just a collection of random trivia and news reports about Gundam in real world, it lacks any coverage from secondary sources about an actual cultural impact, thus it fails to prove it even exists. What we need is an article that truly, directly and explicitely covers the cultural impact (with reception, sale numbers, legacy, influences, etc) and not an accumulation of trivia unrelated to each other and that WP would try to pass as proof of a so-called "cultural impact" (so there could also be an issue of WP:OR here).

Per WP:TRIVIA, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Per WP:GNG, "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content."

These facts may be just fine in a broad article about Gundam, but not as a stand-alone article. As before, if these take too much space in the main article, WP:AVOIDSPLIT tells you to trim any excessive trivia instead of splitting. Please do not try to split again, and focus on better including the content in the main page/trimming.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gundam War Collectible Card Game
Contrary to the above articles, the topic itself is clearly defined and about a specific work. The problem is that the article doesn't have any source, and there is no significant coverage in secondary sources that could establish the game's notability.

As it seems more likely to find such coverage for a specific game than for vague concepts such as "timeline" or "cultural impact", I'm going to leave a notability tag on the article and let you find some sources. However, given the nature of the game, I still don't think you'll be able to find anything significant, and without progress after a week or so, I'll merge the article back to Gundam (or you can do it yourself before if you want). Once again, this won't be binding and you're free to disagree, but the article will go directly to AfD.

What is apparent from these 3 examples is that you failed to apply WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Please try to remember this very important guideline for your future work on large anime franchises such Gundam, Evangelion, GitS, etc, and always keep in mind that you have to trim/remove/clean up, or develop and make sure it's notable, before splitting any content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but no thanks. If making one article decidedly better and serving a purpose that is acceptable under the standard selection criteria is fine, then it should be done. We do not need to go into extreme detail on the franchise page. The card game should never have been dropped onto the franchise. I ask what would you do otherwise? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "no thanks", I'm merely telling you how things work on WP. Your lack of cooperation does not bode well for your future on WP, I originally thought your personal conflict with Ryulong was hampering work on article in which you both contributed, but I can see for myself now that the real problem is your irrepressible desire to have your own way. You just haven't read a single word of what I told you. Unless you drop this behavior of yours, the disputes on various topics will not stop until someone drags you to WP:ANI. When that happens (because I'm sure it will happen at one point), don't count on my support. Consider that a formal warning.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot call something vandalism when it is not vandalism! You have personally attacked me in the past, and you try to play both sides, but you do not assume good faith and you will not even allow for work to be done before wiping things out. I don't know you where your priorities lie, but if you have a problem with those pages how about you discuss it or AFD it before you start calling things vandalism? I said I was going to be working on these pages and I do not want someone following me around and reverting or attacking me. And yes, calling something vandalism that is not vandalism is wrong. Also, I feel that you are wikihounding me and I'm getting quite annoyed by it. I am not sure why there is not AGF or even an understanding of CSC here, so please explain yourself and stop following me around. I'm very busy and I am not going to deal with all this drama - I got 6 more books coming in which I need to finish NGE and a few other topics, but I can tinker with Gundam and start fixing that mess in the mean time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It also seems that the problems in other areas are connected to this disconnect with "Japanese notability" versus "English notability". Kind of problematic, but it seems there is this hostility which should not exist. How can something with 45 sets, international tournaments and a 14 year history not be notable? I think this matter is summed up by your accusation of "vandalism" by removing the N tag on something which is notable, but isn't fully cited and need not be by NREV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You went on a reverting spree without trying to discuss or to understand my position. Removing notability tags without discussion or providing sources may not strictly be vandalism, but it is highly nonconstructive. As for Wikihounding, you've been engaged in this controversial editing style of splitting everything for a while now, and several users have expressed disagreement with the method (here and here for example), reminding you of WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Obviously you haven't changed course, and when I'm notifying you of what I see as mistakes on Gundam articles this is not Wikihounding, but merely how a collaborative encyclopedia is supposed to work. You're simply not the only one editing anime/manga articles, and I think you tend to forget that. You're basically going solo here, you wave away any disagreement as "personal attacks" or "wikidrama", and your latest rants at Talk:Cultural_impact_of_Gundam and User:ChrisGualtieri don't bode well for any kind of collaborative spirit from you. Truth is, it is incredible difficult to interact with you. Given that your account is just one year old, you'd think you might benefit from input and advice from users who've been here for years and who may sometimes have a better understanding of WP's often complex policies and guidelines. But your refusal to collaborate has been duly noted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not post on my page again, your POV pushing, personal attacks and wikihounding and misuse of basic policies combined with your history says that I should not have anything to do with you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Castle of Cagliostro/GA1
I have reviewed this, and reluctantly failed it. It's very good as far as it goes, but it's just not complete enough, and has a lot of citation needed tags, so I don't think it can be fixed in the week GAs have. But I'd be delighted to reviw it again when it's improved a bit - just ask on my talk page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it'd take me less than a week. A&M's editors profess "no redundancy" which goes to rather ludicrous examples of casting information being relegated to character pages or background or referencing. Given that editors outside A&M can see the problems which I desperately want to fix, I wish they would rise to the defense in this tiny corner of Wikipedia. I actually have additional materials on hand to address your GA issues... so you perhaps move to hold it rather than fail? Much of the movie's content is actually just easily pulled into place. And I could probably have it done by Thursday or Friday if you are able to be active in its discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, fixed a good amount of it, but another day or two should fix the rest of the issues you have I think. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly surprised how fast you moved on this. I think it's just about at GA level now; further work shouldn't br dropped, of course, but it's looking a lot better, and is now moving towards FA. Passed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)